Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 12:34 PM
394 online now:
14174dm, caffeine, Chiroptera, DrJones*, Faith, jar, JonF, Larni, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (11 members, 383 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,854 Year: 16,460/21,208 Month: 2,349/3,593 Week: 462/882 Day: 83/97 Hour: 6/19

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dead. The maneuvering begins!
vimesey
Member
Posts: 868
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 46 of 122 (778080)
02-16-2016 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Theodoric
02-15-2016 3:41 PM


Re: British Supreme Court
They could be worse - as young Drew Peacock will testify.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/...ews/95505/You-called-me-what.html


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Theodoric, posted 02-15-2016 3:41 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
Message 47 of 122 (778083)
02-16-2016 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by NoNukes
02-15-2016 1:21 PM


Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emieritus of Boston University, was a longtime friend of Scalia. He was interviewed by Meghna Chakrabarti on local NPR radio station WCRB yesterday. Excerpts were broadcast last night, and at one point she quoted the same passage from the NYT that you did. Cass responded that Scalia was not an adherent of original intent but of textualism. Scalia believed original intent required the impossible task of getting inside the heads of long dead people to discover their intent, while textualism involved the entirely realistic task of discovering what people thought they were agreeing to when they set words on paper.

Scalia felt that we are bound today by what people agreed to over 227 years ago. I'm sure to many of us that sounds absurd on its face. Times inevitably change, something the founders knew well since they were the principle movers behind change. Better to stay true to the principles embodied by the Constitution, which are hopefully timeless.

I'm not sure the distinction between original intent and textualism is all that great. Even Cass said they were only "a little bit different." In my view either approach gives a jurist the excuse to deny nearly anything he pleases just because it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, something Scalia seemed to do a lot.

Cass did have a funny Scalia story. Apparently he was enjoyable and fun to be with. Once on an airliner the flight attendant mispronounced his name and he corrected her. She asked, "You mean like the Supreme Court justice?" and he responded, "Yes, exactly like that." And he left it at that.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Fix gramatically awkward 2nd sentence in 1st para.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 02-15-2016 1:21 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2016 2:24 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 48 of 122 (778089)
02-16-2016 1:06 PM


So was Scalia pro-guns or anti-guns? Did he believe in the constitution? I guess promoting attacks on 'original meaning' would include those who are anti-constitutional.
Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2016 2:16 PM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-18-2016 11:17 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9646
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 49 of 122 (778091)
02-16-2016 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Big_Al35
02-16-2016 1:06 PM


I guess promoting attacks on 'original meaning' would include those who are anti-constitutional.

Yes that's true if you subscribe to the proposition that the only legitimate way to interpret the constitution is to take an impossible poll of the opinions of the founding fathers and to only use the result as your interpretation.

Would that population of subscribers include you?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Big_Al35, posted 02-16-2016 1:06 PM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Big_Al35, posted 02-16-2016 3:14 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9646
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 50 of 122 (778093)
02-16-2016 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
02-16-2016 10:06 AM


'm not sure the distinction between original intent and textualism is all that great. Even Cass said they were only "a little bit different."

Those two doctrines are quite distinct. They are complementary and Scalia used both even though he often claimed to only use original intent. Textualism better describes Scalia's opinion in that ACA case we discussed awhile back.

In my view either approach gives a jurist the excuse to deny nearly anything he pleases just because it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, something Scalia seemed to do a lot.

I think something similar can be said about any one of the traditional methods for interpreting the constitution. They are all subject to bending to the will of the Justice. Every method of interpretation has its strengths and weaknesses. Scalia was of the opinion that doctrines like 'legislative history' have weaknesses that are too strong to justify their use, ever.

In my opinion, Scalia was enamored of some particular techniques because they worked well to yield the conservative answers he wanted to give. For that reason, when Scalia departed from those techniques on major cases (like DC v Heller and Bush v. Gore) his opinions generated lots of derision and accusations of hypocrisy.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 02-16-2016 10:06 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9646
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 51 of 122 (778094)
02-16-2016 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
02-15-2016 6:52 PM


I think not, and in the case of Al Gore I'd argue the country would have been much better off.

Doesn't this suggest that the choice of president does make a significant difference? Certainly it is more speculative to talk about what the losers would have done, but aren't we speculating here?

The only candidate who could get me out of the house is Trump. If he wins the Republican nomination then it will definitely feel pivotal and I will definitely vote.

It seems likely that the winner of the election will be picking not only Scalia's replacement, but also the replacement of one or more of the less conservative Justices as well. That issue alone is enough to not only get me to the polls, but to get me knocking on your door (well not literally your door in NH) to get others to the polls. I certainly don't want Trump or Cruz in that position.

One of Obama's greatest failures, in my opinion is represented by all of the open federal judge positions that he did not get filled. Not all his fault, but he gets some of the blame as do those of us who could not be bothered to vote in Senate races.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 02-15-2016 6:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2016 12:03 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9646
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 52 of 122 (778095)
02-16-2016 2:35 PM


Scalia is impossible to replace.
Of all of the things said about Scalia, the statement that he is irreplaceable irks me the most. Let's recall that Thurgood Marshall was 'replaced' by Clarence Thomas and that Bork would have been Justice Marshall's replacement.

I assume that anyone making statements about Scalia being impossible to replace is really speaking about their own political ideology.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nwr, posted 02-16-2016 3:21 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 53 of 122 (778096)
02-16-2016 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by NoNukes
02-16-2016 2:16 PM


NoNukes writes:

Yes that's true if you subscribe to the proposition that the only legitimate way to interpret the constitution is to take an impossible poll of the opinions of the founding fathers and to only use the result as your interpretation.

Would that population of subscribers include you?

Well since you are open to interpreting the constitution, I would be interested to know what your thoughts on the second amendment would be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2016 2:16 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2016 3:55 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5526
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(7)
Message 54 of 122 (778098)
02-16-2016 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NoNukes
02-16-2016 2:35 PM


Re: Scalia is impossible to replace.
Of all of the things said about Scalia, the statement that he is irreplaceable irks me the most.

Sorry to irk you, but
  • he is irreplaceable;
  • I am glad that he is irreplaceable.

I can do without another Scalia on the court. The next appointee to the court should be there in his own right, and not as a Scalia replacement.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2016 2:35 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 55 of 122 (778099)
02-16-2016 3:30 PM


Topic Reminder
Discussion about gun control should be taken to the Gun Control Again thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Big_Al35, posted 02-17-2016 10:05 AM Admin has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9646
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 56 of 122 (778101)
02-16-2016 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Big_Al35
02-16-2016 3:14 PM


I would be interested to know what your thoughts on the second amendment would be.

I'm sure I've discussed my views on that already in an appropriate forum. That discussion would not be on topic here.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Big_Al35, posted 02-16-2016 3:14 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 57 of 122 (778123)
02-17-2016 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Admin
02-16-2016 3:30 PM


Re: Topic Reminder
Admin writes:

Discussion about gun control should be taken to the Gun Control Again thread.

Ahhh gatekeeping at its finest. From what I understand, Scalia was pro-guns and pro-original intent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Admin, posted 02-16-2016 3:30 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2016 11:32 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 61 by Admin, posted 02-18-2016 6:58 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 02-18-2016 10:47 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 58 of 122 (778125)
02-17-2016 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Big_Al35
02-17-2016 10:05 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
Wouldn't it be easier if your brought your comment to the appropriate thread instead of being a whiny titty baby.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Big_Al35, posted 02-17-2016 10:05 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Big_Al35, posted 02-18-2016 6:32 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Lammy
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 3575
From: Chicago Suburbs
Joined: 03-29-2004


(2)
Message 59 of 122 (778160)
02-17-2016 4:43 PM


I'm convinced he died while having sex with an underage black male prostitute.
    
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 60 of 122 (778198)
02-18-2016 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Theodoric
02-17-2016 11:32 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
Theodoric writes:

Wouldn't it be easier if your brought your comment to the appropriate thread instead of being a whiny titty baby.

You are an officer and a gentleman ("of the system") and I couldn't expect a more fitting response ("pure aggression").


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2016 11:32 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017